← 返回首页
Update readme by zware · Pull Request #21 · python/cpython · GitHub
Skip to content

Navigation Menu

Toggle navigation
Sign in
Appearance settings
Search or jump to...

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Include my email address so I can be contacted
Cancel Submit feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Cancel Create saved search
Appearance settings
Resetting focus

Update readme#21

Merged
zware merged 5 commits into
python:masterfrom
zware:update_readme
Feb 14, 2017
Merged

Update readme#21
zware merged 5 commits into
python:masterfrom
zware:update_readme

Conversation

zware commented Feb 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This does some modernization and cleanup of the toplevel README. There is still significant room for improvement, but this hits some of the low-hanging fruit.

For reviewers, the first commit is the real change, the second commit is a simple rewrap.

Mariatta reviewed Feb 11, 2017
View reviewed changes
Comment thread README.rst Outdated

Mariatta Feb 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality Hide comment

GitHub with capital H :)

zware Feb 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality Hide comment

Thanks!

ezio-melotti reviewed Feb 11, 2017
View reviewed changes
Comment thread README.rst Outdated

ezio-melotti Feb 11, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality Hide comment

This paragraph is a bit harsh, from the uppercase "IMPORTANT" to calling the output of "make test" "useless".

I would rewrite it as:

If the tests fail, you can run the failing test(s) in verbose mode using:
./python -m test -v test_that_failed
You should then file a bug report and include the output of this command.

zware Feb 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality Hide comment

Good point, will amend.

matrixise Feb 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality Hide comment

Maybe we could keep a consistence, ./python -m test -v test_that_failed or make test TESTOPTS="-v" test_that_failed

zware Feb 12, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality Hide comment

@matrixise I'm not sure I understand your point. I switched to make test TESTOPTS="-v test_that_failed" because running the tests is suggested with make test, and there was previously a note about what to do if you built python in a different directory. Reusing make test with TESTOPTS means the different directory question just goes away, but we get exactly the same result.

matrixise reviewed Feb 11, 2017
View reviewed changes
Comment thread README.rst Outdated

matrixise Feb 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality Hide comment

why this character ' ?

pfmoore Feb 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality Hide comment

It's the possessive form. Maybe a better wording would be "LTO takes advantage of the ability of recent compiler toolchains to optimise..."

matrixise Feb 11, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality Hide comment

yep, because I have not seen the possessive form, but just a mistake in the text.

zware Feb 12, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose a reason Spam Abuse Off Topic Outdated Duplicate Resolved Low Quality Hide comment

I agree, this is significantly less than ideal. Fixing it also showed that there's a typo in "takes advantages".

zware added 5 commits February 13, 2017 21:47
Various updates to README.rst …
4fffc3f
These include spelling/grammar fixes, removing some outdated prose, updating some superceded prose, and adding/cleaning up some links.
Rewrap at 80 columns …
ca7c4f6
[skip ci]
Capitalize the 'H' in GitHub
a5ebe4b
Soften verbose testing section
5bbcd3a
Fix awkward construction in LTO section …
5a20814
[skip ci]

codecov Bot commented Feb 14, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Codecov Report

Merging #21 into master will decrease coverage by -0.02%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #21 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 82.38% 82.37% -0.02% ========================================== Files 1428 1427 -1 Lines 351138 350948 -190 ========================================== - Hits 289291 289087 -204 - Misses 61847 61861 +14

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update b692dc8...5a20814. Read the comment docs.

zware merged commit d50f188 into python:master Feb 14, 2017
zware deleted the update_readme branch February 14, 2017 04:01
zware added a commit to zware/cpython that referenced this pull request Feb 14, 2017
Backport master's README.rst to 3.6 …
37c0cb7
Includes GH-2, pythonGH-70, pythonGH-73, and pythonGH-21.
zware mentioned this pull request Feb 14, 2017
Merged
zware added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 15, 2017
Backport master's README.rst to 3.6 (GH-86) …
1e8cc88
Includes GH-2, GH-70, GH-73 (GH-79), and GH-21.
vstinner mentioned this pull request Feb 15, 2017
Merged

Mariatta commented Feb 25, 2017

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Backport to 3.5 and 2.7?

pablogsal mentioned this pull request Jun 12, 2020
Closed
itachaaa mentioned this pull request Aug 22, 2022
Open
mdboom mentioned this pull request Aug 25, 2022
Closed
mdboom mentioned this pull request Nov 22, 2022
Closed
9 hidden items Load more…
ziegenbalg mentioned this pull request Nov 30, 2022
Closed
jaraco pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 2, 2022
random.choice wasn't needed (GH-21)
81e8d6b
nanjekyejoannah added a commit to nanjekyejoannah/cpython that referenced this pull request Feb 16, 2023
Merge python#21 …
50b46c5
21: warn for keys/items/values/range r=ltratt a=nanjekyejoannah I think I was over-thinking the solution with flags at synbol table generation. I found a simple check at the AST that checks correctness of values assigned to wanr for things like "True" and other keywords and used this check to warn for these calls. This warns for `keys/values/items/range`: Accurate when the statement is in an assignment: `x = range(20)` ` y = d.keys()` Co-authored-by: Joannah Nanjekye <jnanjeky@unb.ca>
jaraco pushed a commit to jaraco/cpython that referenced this pull request Feb 17, 2023
Add support for multiversion testing with tox (python#21) …
a07bc94
Also full coverage for all supported Pythons.
oraluben pushed a commit to oraluben/cpython that referenced this pull request Jun 25, 2023
fix: wrong offset in BB_BRANCH_IF_FLAG_SET codegen (python#21)
b398fab
gvanrossum mentioned this pull request Aug 22, 2023
Closed
LinanV mentioned this pull request Oct 23, 2023
Closed
stasos24 mentioned this pull request Oct 24, 2023
Closed
williamhu020 mentioned this pull request Nov 5, 2023
Closed
kcatss mentioned this pull request Nov 15, 2023
Closed
kcatss mentioned this pull request Jan 14, 2024
Closed
kcatss mentioned this pull request Feb 12, 2024
Closed
kcatss mentioned this pull request Feb 20, 2024
Closed
ngoldbaum mentioned this pull request Sep 23, 2024
Closed
Dean6767 mentioned this pull request Feb 10, 2025
Closed
This was referenced Feb 11, 2025
Closed
Closed
DominiquePACCO mentioned this pull request Jun 3, 2025
Closed
efimov-mikhail mentioned this pull request Nov 5, 2025
Open
youknowone referenced this pull request in youknowone/cpython Nov 25, 2025
Run rustfmt (#21)
e7fe182
StanFromIreland referenced this pull request in StanFromIreland/cpython Dec 6, 2025
Merge pull request #21 from LazyImportsCabal/lazy_rebase …
d8f95f7
Lazy rebase
sergey-miryanov mentioned this pull request Dec 18, 2025
Closed
Qanux mentioned this pull request Feb 11, 2026
Closed
ngoldbaum mentioned this pull request Mar 6, 2026
Open
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Show hidden characters
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

matrixise matrixise left review comments
pfmoore pfmoore left review comments
Mariatta Mariatta left review comments
ezio-melotti ezio-melotti left review comments
berkerpeksag berkerpeksag approved these changes
dstufft dstufft approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants

Footer

© 2026 GitHub, Inc.